How does Banning Legal Guns in Kroeger’s Stop Armed Robbery?

By Dean Weingarten

Bank Robber in Kroeger's
Bank Robber in Kroeger’s
Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- On freerepublic.com, a discussion about the Moms Demand Action push for a gun ban following an armed robbery of a bank inside of a Kroeger’s, brought this commonly expressed question.  This one was from rktman:

“Uh, how would this have stopped the robbery again? Please ‘splain that to us.”

I will explain it.  MDA is playing a very long game.   In order to be effective, they have to reduce the number of guns in society by large, large, amounts.  They have to avoid considering any benefits gained from gun ownership.  Here is how I believe they think it will work:

1.  Bully retail establishments into banning the carry of guns in their stores, as a step to make guns illegitimate in society, as the combination of trial lawyers, legislators, and the old media have done with cigarettes.

2.  Keep incrementally banning guns everywhere possible to make guns more and more socially unacceptable, and legally difficult to own, in order to reduce the number of legal gun owners.

3.  When the number of legal gun owners are reduced sufficiently, ban the legal ownership of guns, except in extremely restricted circumstances.  Think Japan and the U.K.

4.  Gradually, through incremental gun confiscation, “buy backs“, increasingly draconian restrictions on ownership and use, perhaps over a couple of generations, reduce the number of guns legitimately owned by 99 percent.

5.   This will start to reduce the number of guns used criminally by some amount, it does not matter how little.   As soon as the number of gun owners and/or guns start to drop, immediately claim credit for any crime reduction, even if the trends started long before your legislation and are not backed up by facts.

6.   Keep up the pressure, and eventually, after several decades, we will have less crimes committed with guns.   This is sure to happen, because even though crime has not been reduced elsewhere when guns were banned or restricted, we have a much larger number of crimes committed with guns than the UK or Japan.  Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, and Jamaica do not count because they are not the UK or Japan.

7.  An increase in crime by other means does not matter.   The goal is to reduce the number of crimes with guns, so only statistics involving guns matter.    It does not matter if overall homicides increase, if they are not committed with guns.   We can always turn our efforts to banning knives, as they have in the U.K.

8.  We know that governments will be beneficent all along the way, because no western democracy has ever been overthrown in the last 75 years.   Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico and Ukraine or other examples do not count, because they were not really western Democracies.   We know this because they were overthrown, invaded or became failed states, so they never were real western democracies.  Blame their problems on the second amendment or on western democracies.

9.   The efforts to reduce gun violence will not be rendered useless by 3D printing, smuggling, home made guns, or other technologies.  This is because we will define “gun violence” as violence with guns that were produced in legal channels.   If a gun was produced illegitimately, we cannot be blamed.  We will also do everything we can to reduce access to those technologies that can be used to produce guns by anyone outside of governments.

So you see, sometime in the far, far distant future, after the Constitution has been completely trashed, and the U.S. is a Utopian socialist state like the UK, we will have reduced armed robberies committed with guns by some amount. (at the expense of safety and security of free peoples)

This general program seemed to be working until about 1994, except, of course, the crime rate kept increasing with more restrictions on guns.   About 1994 “gun control” peaked, as did the levels of violent crime.  The electorate rebelled against the Clinton gun ban.  Second amendment supporters made serious gains from 1994 through 2013.  The rate of “gun violence” and overall violent crime fell in half.

I do not believe that the disarmenters have sufficient media control to pull off the above program, as illustrated by the failure of the Obama push for more gun control.   We are in the process of seeing  if a combination of old media push and new “progressive” billionaire money can do the trick.

A serious challenge exists in the tens of millions of dollars that are being thrown into initiative processes such as the Washington state initiative I-594.    If the disarmenters fail there, after spending 10 times as much as second amendment supporters, they may fall back for another 20 years.

c2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
james
james
6 years ago

If US banned all guns tomorrow and they were all collected in one huge sweep,
the criminals will continue to get firearms on black market and even build their own
using cnc lathe and milling machines in their basement or garage.

They can even make their own ammo, just like they cook up Meth and other narcotics.

Laws are for honest people.

No law(s) past, present or future can legislate what is inside the mind of an individual who
wants to harm other citizens, the laws are tools for prosecution after crime(s) were committed.

John
John
6 years ago
Reply to  james

James nailed it. Only a good guy (like myself ) with a lathe and a milling machine can stop a bad guy with a lathe and milling machine. Most law enforcement shows up after the crime ha been committed which is correct to say that laws are tools for prosecution after you lose a family member to some meth head or thug. What’s next? Confiscation of my machine shop that I make a living with to legally add to the GDP of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Mike
Mike
6 years ago

With the troubles the radical islamics are bringing to America, an increase in armed citizenry and not a decline is in order.

ray hampton
ray hampton
6 years ago

babies are born sort of stupid BUT they overcome their problem and are able to learn , WELL MOST OF THEM

Bp. David
Bp. David
6 years ago

Very flawed logic on the part of “Moms Demand Defenseless Victims.” If the number of guns were decreased by 99%, the 1% who are armed robbers and murderers of “Moms With Little Children” would be the only ones having them. Besides, when only criminals and GovThugs have them, you do what the French Resistance did–you use bats, iron bars, or any other improvised weapon to knock out armed cops and soldiers responding to phony disturbance calls and gradually get enough arms to retake your freedom. With the Sword of the Word on my tongue and a brace of pistols on… Read more »